I agree with you. Github should definitely not be the unique place for code. But we should be able to have code there at a low cost.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wackn...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 22.10.15 um 17:30 schrieb monty: >> Github is a private VC funded company that we don't own that tomorrow could >> go away or adopt policies harmful to us. If Ruby can have rubygems.org (and >> if Steph can continue to get funding from INRIA/ESUG), then why can't we >> have something like STHub that's ours? >> >> > +1 > Github may be hip today but can be outdated in a few years. If Smalltalk > would have chosen a version management technology > that was en vogue in the 80s where would it be now? Does anybody even > remember one of those from then? > Having nice github integration (or whatever might be the technology of the > day) is one thing, completely relying on it is something > different. >
